So Michael Bloomberg is getting ready to throw his hat into the 2008 Presidential race ring (or is he?) but has the ring changed from the last time a third party candidate seemed like he could actually WIN in the election?
CNN contributor and talk show host Roland Martin notes that if he goes ahead with the still unannounced plans, Bloomberg can’t be automatically compared to Texas billionaire Ross Perot — and the America that briefly considered Ross Perot an authentic option for the White House is not the same America or political scene today.
If the billionaire jumps into the race, he would be the 19th candidate to declare for the presidency. He is worth $5 billion — some say as much as $20 billion — and the thought of a serious third-party bid hasn’t been a reality since diminutive billionaire Ross Perot garnered 19 percent in the 1992 election, helping Democratic challenger Bill Clinton beat President George H.W. Bush to win the presidency.
According to Martin, that’s where the main similarity ends: both have big bucks.
He then notes that there are big differences…perhaps bigger differences than similarities:
Go back to February 20, 1992, when Perot appeared on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and opined about a number of critical issues. The nation was in a mess. We were buried in a recession, Bush had gone back on his no tax pledge, and his Republican supporters were angry and out for blood.
In steps a tough-talking Texan who brought a no-nonsense approach to politics. His voice was fresh — albeit a bit squeaky — he didn’t bite his tongue on the tough issues, and then, of course, singer/actress Cher phoned in and expressed her support for him running for the White House.
So Perot made it clear: Get me on 50 ballots and I’m your man.
That led to the creation of the Reform Party, a group of grassroots activists tired of the established political parties. The nation was begging for a change and Perot was their man.
And, indeed, he is correct. There were some accounts that suggested Perot used the Larry King format to show a clamor that his people were encouraging behind the scenes. But that would actually be irrelevant because the fact is: Perot caught on like wildfire after those appearances because many people tuned in and liked what they saw. he literally WAS the conversation at the water cooler. Many people like what he said and those who didn’t thought he was engagingly quirky and an idea man. He became an instant celebrity due to his content and his style.
One big difference between now and then was the kind of media Americans now utilize.
The days when Larry King was one of the few big fishes in town has changed with the advent of lively challengers to CNN.
News blogs are now quick to jump on each statement, comma or inflection in a candidate’s proclamations.
News cycles are faster and non ending which is good if it works to your advantage, but could also deflate or damage a candidacy rather rapidly.
Martin also notes these differences:
Fast forward to today. There is no national clamor for a Bloomberg candidacy. He is a sitting politician who is known more for being a great manager than someone who will speak truth to power and generate attention with soaring oratory. In fact, he is downright boring in his speeches.
And boring can SINK a candidacy in a 21st Century America where expectations about appearances and a minimum quota of charisma matter. (Look at what’s happening to an actor named Fred Thompson):
America is just as dissatisfied today as it was in 1992, but this time, it’s about the Iraq war. A lot of folks thought the nation spoke by giving Democrats the Congress in November, but that still hasn’t changed the war. So how will Bloomberg fix the most critical issue facing the country?
Who is Bloomberg’s constituency? Is it Republicans who are desperate for a standard-bearer in the mold of Ronald Reagan? Bloomberg doesn’t appeal to the GOP base — he’s liberal, from New York and is Jewish. (Be honest, if he was a hard-core conservative and a Baptist, they would be falling over him.)
He might appeal to disenchanted Democrats like Perot did, but the left is energized by the last election, and the last thing they want to do is back a candidate who may keep them out of the White House after eight years of George W. Bush.
And herein is the problem. Bloomberg COULD be a credible candidate because there are people out there who are part of a backlash against partisanship. They would like to see more consensus, negotiation and bipartisanship. But many of these voters remember full well 2000 when Ralph Nader (who apparently dislikes Hillary Clinton and is now making noises about running again, in an apparent effort to become the Harold Stassen of 2008) ran around the country saying there was no difference between the two parties.
To many voters, third parties and independent candidates are valid options and those who insist you must pick “the lesser of two evils” eventually get what they vote for. But amid huge voter dissatisfaction, Bloomberg could be a tough sell to those who aren’t in the political class or who don’t sit around at computers writing blog posts. And a sell is harder to make if you are charisma challenged.
Just look at a partial list of voter dissatisfaction. You see growing anger in many quarters over the Iraq war, ire among traditional conservatives who feel the Bush group has run roughshod over long held conservative and libertarian principles, people on the left and right who turn thumbs down to an administration that has governed mostly towards its own party base, and some Nader voters who now realize that there might have been a bit of difference on environmental, judicial and other policies if they had voted differently.
Votes do make a difference. Elections do matter. And today both parties and conservatives and liberals realize it. Will disenchanted voters feel Bloomberg is a viable enough candidacy to “send ’em a message”?
And what happens if you have the two major party candidates AND Bloomberg AND Nader in the ring? It would impact the big parties — but how would that impact Bloomberg’s already formidable task of winning the White House as an independent?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.